How can one learn good history if people (Even professional historians) with agendas and obvious bias are constantly meddling and putting falsehoods in it?
Learn to interpret what you read.
>>789801
Learn critical reading skills, read the peer reviews of works you read
Just learn about history that boring enough to put any agenda on it.
>>789801
Critical reading. Don't take things for face value, learn to discern the more fantastical notions from the more realistic ones.
Read a lot of shit from different POVs, see what they all agree on.
And learn to disregard shit that is blatantly and obviously false.
>>789801
Read from a variety of sources. Parse the facts from the arguments; don't necessarily dismiss them put of hand, but draw your own conclusions.
Think, don't just absorb and parrot.
Ya don't
Everyone is out to glorify themselves and demonize others
>What is critical thinking
It's like you're a complete idiot or something
Whenever you read anything make sure to run it by /po -- I mean /his/... to make sure it's not degeneracy.
>>789801
I got easy one
Things that put your country or allies on good side are true
Rest are rubbish
>>789811
>>789816
>>789843
That's not what I really want. I have enough things to think critically about. Historians in my opinion should just do a better job at presenting facts.
Most history books I read are written with a narrative with a lot of human baggage. I only want to know the specific events, as in, what people did, not what people thought. I can figure that out myself
>>789834
>draw your own conclusions.
That's the problem. If I'm drawing out my own conclusions, some other people will read the same thing and be led to a different conclusion. History should be about facts and nothing else.
>>789925
>History should be about facts and nothing else.
Please read a basic text on historiography.
>>789925
The problem with this is we are always working with a very limited set of evidence, in fact every professional piece of history is making an argument
>>789913
I don't think you actually understand what the discipline of history entails.
>>789956
>we are always working with a very limited set of evidence
That doesn't mean we should be making up bullshit to fill in the gaps.
If you're literally just learning about something for the first time, it doesn't really matter all that much.
Nobody is going to tell you that WW1 didn't happen.
The facts are largely the same - the biases (which everyone has regardless of what side they're on) only tend to come in as they pertain to interpretation of motives and consequences.
The basic facts are the same regardless.
"Good" history doesn't exist
>>789968
Evidence is meaningless without thinking about possible conclusions.
>>789913
>waaah I want all the hard work done for me
All histories are going to have an inherent bias. Even if you somehow obtain a purely descriptive history, the bias will come in from things that are left in and things that are left out.
Basically, your options are as follows:
1) do the research and obtain access to primary sources so that you can piece together your own history, with the knowledge that your results will be biased.
2) read a large variety of sources from historians and primary sources in order to draw your own conclusion about how you think events actually unfolded, with the knowledge that the conclusions you personally draw will be biased.
>>789970
I want history books to take out all the bias, motives and other kind of bullshit and just leave me with the facts. Smaller books = easier to read and people won't have the historian bias attached to them.
>>789913
>I only want to know the specific events, as in, what people did, not what people thought. I can figure that out myself
Gosh, I had a good laugh over this.
>>789984
>waaah I want all the hard work done for me
Exactly. I thought it was the job of the historians to educate the public.
>the conclusions you personally draw will be biased.
What do you mean by that? If the history book says that black people fought with pointy sticks, then my conclusion will be that, black people fought with pointy sticks.
No bias here my friendo.
>>789983
Why is that so?
>>789801
Could someone recommend a good introduction to historiography to anon? Here's someone who seems to have no idea how the discipline developed and what it can and cannot do.
>>789997
Because this "purely descriptive" history book will be biased by what level of detail it delves into. Take your example. Say the book goes into deep detail about the weapons used by Boer forces at the battle of blood ridge, then it says "whereas the Zulu forces wielded pointy sticks and wooden shields"
Is there not inherent bias in that?
>>789986
>take out all the bias, motives and other kind of bullshit and just leave me with the facts
I'm not sure if that's possible in a way that would leave you with anything meaningful to read.
"In Sarajevo on June 28 1914 a Serbian named Gavrilo Princip walked out the door of a cafe, pulled out a pistol, and shot the Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife where they sat in an automobile."
In isolation that fact doesn't give you very much - why was Princip there? Why was he angry enough to shoot people? Why was the archduke there? Why was it a particularly bad day to be there, and why did he go there anyway? Who gave Princip the gun and why did they give it to him? What was Princip hoping to achieve, and how was this the same or different from what the Black Hand was hoping to achieve? And on and on and on.
Understanding requires context, and thus interpretation. Nobody knows or will ever know what was really going on in anyone's head - it's all best guesses.
>>790016
Then the book is at fault and is not purely descriptive.
>>790018
Plus this is almost all bias, yet it still gives you some meaningful information - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCEUZ4rFiac
>>790018
>anything meaningful to read.
Then look into other fields. The problem is that people only get into history because of their bias and want meaning. This is not good. People who aren't interested in the facts shouldn't be discussing the subject in the first place.
As for the rest of the things you said, sure, people can make their guesses as to what happened. History books shouldn't delve into that though. It's none of their business to offer their interpretations on the matter. Do your job and get the fuck out.
>>790031
I think your mistake is believing that people are capable of giving purely descriptive, perfectly factually accurate accounts of events in the first place. It's hard to fault a book for lacking something people are incapable of putting into it.
>>790051
>people are capable of giving purely descriptive,
That's why you have computers and machines to help.
>>790061
What do you mean by this? That a computer is capable of giving you absolutely true information because it is a computer?
>>790050
>The problem is that people only get into history because of their bias and want meaning
i would like to think most people get into history because they are fascinated by the rich tapastery that is human history
>>790050
Have you ever taken a university-level history class?
>>790001
say a battlefield. you have some archaeological distribution of ammunition and two contradictory accounts.
From that you can say some things almost certainly happened, and many other things probably happened, but not without making an argument as to why
>OP has not yet grasped the unity of subject and substance
Holy shit, look at him and laugh
OP appears to be a pretty good troll. 9/10.
Critical thinking and looking for the opinion of more historians.
Take Latin American history.
The biggest war in the region is likely the Paraguay War.
We are taught in Brazil that the war happened because the British were afraid of Paraguay's industrialization and convinced Brazil to destroy Paraguay in a war.
Then comes the critical thinking:
- Paraguay was the one that attacked Brazil, not the other way around. Brazil was totally unprepared for the war and hardly had an army. Most of the war consisted of Brazil getting embarrassed by Paraguay and getting its ass kicked.
- Brazil had an awful relationship with Britain at the time and we had a huge diplomatic incident that led to small scale conflicts and almost led to a war.
>>790114
>We are taught in Brazil that the war happened because the British were afraid of Paraguay's industrialization and convinced Brazil to destroy Paraguay in a war.
And this wouldn't have happened if historians weren't meddling with history. Words like "why" should be taken out of these books.
>>790072
No. You can write or own software that prevent you from having a bias. Like, if you're putting unnecessary adjectives for your text, you can cut that all out.
>>790135
>You can write or own software that prevent you from having a bias
7/10
>>790135
This isn't historical bias and it fails to deal entirely with selection bias, methodological biases and theoretical bias.
>>789801
a good historian doesn't know the true historical timeline, a good historian knows all historical timelines.
>>790232
modal realist please go.
>>790232
A good historian doesn't know any historical timeline, but possesses all the methodological tools he needs to learn about the history of any given possible world.
